Genetic Engineering In Food Production

Over the past couple of decades much debate has been going on about the use
ofadvanced technology in the field of biology. Ever since the first gene
wascloned in 1973, genetic engineers have been pursuing at break-neck speed
the"unlimited possibilities" promised by biotechnology (Davidson
1993).

Their excitement, which has generated billions of investment
dollars for theindustry, is understandable. Bioengineering allows scientists
to identifyspecific gene sequences responsible for particular
characteristics and then totransfer the genes -- and the specific trait --
into entirely different species.

One of the more current and
controversial issue in the field of biotechnology isthe use of
bioengineering in food production. Scientists are experimenting withmany
different plants, but the genetic engineering of the tomato, dubbed
"Flavr

Savr" has been the most highly publicized project by far. The new
tomato issupposed to boast more "flavor" and be tastier due to its
longerstaying time on the vine, thereby giving it more time to accumulate
sweetness;yet, it will not rot or spoil because of its new genetic makeup.
(Davidson

1993). With this advanced technology scientists argue that it
could offer thegreatest hope in the aid to stop hunger in Third World
countries. This newtechnology could be used to make bulk levels of food
production more efficientand less costly. However, despite all of its
advantages in creating bettercrops, many people are very skeptical about its
safetiness and possiblelong-term health effects. Moreover, the social issue
lies deep in the realm ofethical and moral concerns. Do people really want
to eat meat that is leaner andtastier but contains genes from humans? Or,
would individuals (like vegetarians)be able to eat certain vegetables that
may contain genes from animals?

Personally, I would not support the use
of genetic engineering in foodproduction based on moral and ethical reasons:
I do not think that scientistsshould be able to use their knowledge and
social prestige in society to be ableto play the role of "God" in creating
new or better living things evenif their justification is for the purpose of
serving mankind. Although we stillhave much to learn about genes, recently
developed techniques have already givenrise to a new technology of molecular
genetics. Genetic engineering, also knownas "gene splicing/manipulation" and
"recombinant DNAtechnology" is a set of techniques for reconstructing, or
deliberatelymanipulating, the genetic material of an organism. Operating at
the molecularlevel, this process involves the addition, deletion, or
reorganization of piecesof an organism's DNA (known as genes) in order to
alter that organism's proteinproduction (Arms et al. 1994). The use and
applications of genetic engineeringrange from medical and pharmaceutical to
industrial crops and food products."Its applications, today or in the
future, include...creating improvedstrains of crops and farm animals (Arms
et al. 1994)." All of theseapplications rely on the ability to transplant
genes into a cell's makeup, orgenome. The new gene may come from another
organism, of the same species, or itmay contain DNA produced in the
laboratory. One example, the new "Flavr

Savr" tomato, developed by
Calgene, a biotechnology company based in Davis,

California, was
subjected to years of scrutiny before the FDA (Food and
Drug

Administration) agreed that it was safe to eat. They found, copied,
and rebuilta gene that lets these tomatoes stay on the vine without
softening and spoiling.

That means that the fruit can develop more of the
sugars and acids that make ahome-grown tomato taste so sweet and rich.
Conventional tomatoes sold in thestores are often hard and flavorless
because they are picked while green andfirm enough to transport, then
'ripened' by spraying with ethylene (Wood 1995).

This turns the tomato
red but does nothing to develop a riper flavor. Ethylene,a colorless,
odorless gas that once kicks in, so do all the problems ofperishability
(Wood 1995). Since tomatoes have a "softening" gene, itproduces RNA
(Ribonucleic Acid) to help manufacture a protein that causesrotting. To stop
the tomatoes going soft too soon, the researchers devised a wayto block
production of the enzyme polygalacturonase, which breaks down cellwalls and
eventually causes the fruit to rot (Miller 1994). The Calgenescientists
inserted a mirror image of the softening gene that produces a reversecopy of
the RNA. This reverse RNA blocks the action of the regular RNA and helpsto
preserve the fruit. All in all, Calgene seems to have produced a good
buthardly outstanding tomato using "antisense" technology, given all
thepropaganda and advertisements. A couple of the reasons for why the tomato
failedwere because: (a) the manipulation of the ripening gene had
unintendedconsequences (soft skin, weird taste, compositional changes); and
(b) the highprice -- they tried selling it at first for $2.99 a pound (as
expensive asorganic tomatoes), then later dropped the price to $2.49, then
$1.99, then .99.

Furthermore, the general public does not seem persuaded
or have caught up withthis "trend" yet. For one, people are greatly
concerned about thesafety of the product since the FDA does not insist that
genetically engineeredfoods carry a special label, even though the FDA
assured consumers that they canbe "confident" in knowing that "foods
produced by geneticengineering are as safe as food in our grocery stores
today," stated FDA

Commissioner David A. Kessler, MD (Miller 1994).
However, critics have cited acase in which at least 31 people died and 1500
contracted a fatal blood diseaseafter ingesting a genetically engineered
batch of L-trytophan, a dietarysupplement (Davidson 1993). Without proper
labeling it will be impossible forconsumers to exercise their right to
choose what kind of foods they eat. Anotherissue among consumers and
environmental activist groups is that of moral andethical concerns. Many
people feel that scientists might have gone too far interms of
experimentation. We have now come to the end of the familiar pathway
ofleaving everything to the creation of "Mother Nature." With the riseof
advanced technology in genetics, scientists now possess the ability
tomanipulate genes, and redirect the course of evolution. They can
reassemble oldgenes and devise new ones. They can plan, and with computer
simulation,anticipate the future forms and paths of life. Hence, the old
ways of evolutionwill be dwarfed by the role of purposeful human
intelligence. However, just asnature stumbled upon life billions of years
ago and began the process ofevolution, so too would the new creators of life
find that living organisms allhave a destiny of their own. To evaluate the
validity of the"benefits" of this technology, we need to answer three
simplequestions: Is it safe, is it wise, is it moral? (Sinsheimer 1987). To
answer thefirst question about whether it is safe, if the technological
developments arekept open to public knowledge and scrutiny, I think in the
short term it couldbe. This way the general public can monitor the hazards
of any new productintroduced into the biosphere, and can probably cope with
any immediate problemsor consequences. In answering the second question of
whether it is wise, I wouldsay that it is not. Through decades of research,
scientists have learned of thedifferent pathogens that prey on humans,
animals, and major crops. But I believethat their knowledge is still very
limited in trying to understand what led tothese organisms' existence and
modes of adaptation. Thus scientists cannotreally predict whether all their
new "discoveries" and creations mightsomehow lead to a new and unexpected
group of harmful species since potentialorganisms that could be converted by
one or more mutations be transformed fromharmless bugs to serious risks.
Finally, to answer the question of theadvantages of genetic engineering in
terms of morality and ethics, I can onlysay that the more we create, the
more problems we will have in the long run intrying to solve them. Life has
evolved on this planet into a delicately balancedand fragile network of
self-sustaining interactions and equilibrium (Sinsheimer

1987). If we try
to change or replace the creatures and vegetation of this earthwith
human-designed forms to conform to human will, I believe we will forget
ourorigins and inadvertently collapse the ecological system in which we were
found.

Moreover, do we really want to assume the full responsibility for
the structureand make-up of our world? I think that we seriously need to
intervene betweenthe scientists and engineers to consider a solution that
will help slow down allof these experiments so that we could step back and
look at what we are doing.

If not, I think that these practicing
scientists and researchers should be morebroadly educated in our humanistic
values and traditions. They need tounderstand the implications of what they
are doing in order to be able tobalance the concerns of the natural
environment and that of society's humanisticneeds; to bear in mind that
technology exists only to serve and not create.

Human beings, are of
course, sprung from the same DNA and built of the samemolecules as all other
livings things. But if we begin to regard ourselves asjust another group of
subjects to test our experiments on by altering ortampering with the foods
we eat, just like another crop to be engineered oranother breed to be
perfected, we will surely lose our awe of humanity andundermine all sense of
human dignity.